miércoles, 27 de mayo de 2009

22 comentarios:

CARMEN
dijo...

I have found the play quite nice, actually. It was nicely cool in the theatre, which seemed to be quite a problem for Estrella,at one point, but after the heat in Platonov it was good news. the text is not great but there were some interesting things, the discredit of the Monarchy, with that irresponsible King, whose infatuation for Estrella causes a real tragedy in the life of three innocent victims. Then, there is the question of honour, here it appears as if the author is questioning the relevance of HONOUR as a national emblem, Shakespeare´s"What is Honour? A word" rang in my ears when Sancho was asking himself how he could have killed his friend and ruin his life for a word. The absolute credulity with which the Sevillian nobility accept that Busco must have offended the King show what power The King had, and helps us to understand what "unfortunate cosequences" it brought to them..As to the performance itself, the most unaffected was the funny one and Estrella really, really BAD all she could do is SHOUT.

About "La estrella de Sevilla", well I must say I enjoyed the play it was not fantastic, as usual, but much better than Platonov anyway, the best actor for me was the servant and the best dress Caprile´s wedding dress. It was admirable to see the Sevillians so honourable and deserving, one thinks how much have we changed! And they have changed!!!If the play was Lope´s it was indeed not the best he wrote but I´m always glad to see the classics although one always thinks that Shakespeare is so close to us and this...I´m just thinking when are our actors going to learn how to act? Estrella lost her voice, she was shouting so much and the king, my God, where did they get out him? Well as I said deficient and sometimes impossible to understand but better than Platonov that and the Hamlet were terrible.

Hello,I just want to say something short about this evening play.As soon as I saw the actors appearing on the stage I thought it was going to be difficult to follow the play,not only because it was spoken on verse(?)but because the set was so simple,I really missed the luxurious costumes the court (the king and his retinue)used to wear at that time.I´m sorry ,maybe I´m old fashioned and I need things as is right and proper!!And...that´s why I didn´t understand the contemporary music. On the contrary I did like the violin,the sound of which placed us on(?) the correct tension for each scene.Does anyone agree???ByePS:(?) These are doubts,could anyone correct them?

Hahaha...I´ve just read your comments and I´m thinking on the king,Marta,he plays the roll of a safety guard in "Camera Café", a tv program,in which he speaks with an accent,from Extremadura I think.Hahaha...I found him really different here!!!As for the honour question,Carmen,why do we women have always to pay for it?

I envy Carmen and Marta, you could follow the ply, I couldn’t. It’s very curious what Silvia says because I thought exactly the same, and it happened.In my opinion theatre is a spectacle, and must be a work of art, and not only in actor’s work but also in everything surrounding them, I mean, clothes, hairstyles, scenery, music etc.When in the theatre I want to be entertained, to be made enjoy, I don’t like to have to be all the time “working”, imagining how are they dressed or where are they, if in a garden, a house, a palace or in the middle of a square. I got exhausted trying to see “everything” in my mind. Lidia said they were like a removal group, and I found her definition very accurate.They didn’t do their work, I paid for nothing. You may call what we watched a “recitation” if you please, but don’t call it theatre. It would be the same if they would have been seated and reading. In fact I did a proof, I closed my eyes for a while and it was exactly the same.I also though it is a great presumptuousness to burden the actor’s with all the weight of the play. Spanish actors usually aren’t as good as to be able to carry out a play in such conditions. In short, I found great difficulties to follow the play and, although I recognise it was better than Platonov, for instance, I felt cheated. In Fuente Ovejuna, you can enjoy or not the acting, but there is no doubting you’ll see effort, imagination, art, etc. and no a “removal” and a “reading” as we saw yesterday.

I belong to the group that don´t need to see the perfect scenary and the perfect wardrobe to feel that a performance has been good. However, I must admit that it is true that to go to the Pavon means to see wonderful Caprile´s clothes, and we could see only one... I think a very good work can be done with not a lot of resources, provided actors are good. This happened at Hoy se ensaya Hamlet, for instance, which is one of the best plays of this year, after the bridge project. Yesterday´s actors were not bad. I agree, Estrella was the worst. As to the best, I think it was Busto that spoke naturally a very understandable verse. I didn´t like the modern music, which sometimes covered actors´ voices.The plot was really interesting. We should think about honour´s efficacy through the history. Each culture has interpreted the honour in many different ways, but has any of these interpretations got a good result? Cultural misunderstanding of honour has brought tragedy, anguish, desperation and unhappiness. And yes Silvia, women have usually taken the worst part...

¡¡¡¿¿¿???!!!Why is it NECESSARY??!! (encontrar maneras diferentes de llevar a escena nuestros grandes textos) Which knowledge?! And, what is that viewpoint? It was beauty what we saw yesterday?!!!! The only think in which I agree is that there was risk. And one more question: It’s our contemporary sensibility something that only deserves stains in canvases, empty spaces, odd things, black clothes etc? If it is so, I must be some kind of ghost belonging to a different time, because I like colour, I like shapes, I like beautiful period costumes, sets, etc.

Paloma, a performance can be traditional or innovative, and you can like it or not, which only depends on you free will. Subjetivity of opinions against objetivity of descriptions, the credibility of which just depends of your prestige, fame or reputation. I insist that what we saw yesterday was not that bad, nor an outrage. Eduardo Vasco has not changed the plot of Lope´s (were he who wrote the play), which sometimes happens (in Pandur´s version of Hamlet, for instance) when I would be able to understand the indignation. But, from my point of view, this play does not deserve such a criticism.

OK Maria, you have your opinion, which I, of course, respect, and I have mine. Different people have different tastes and opinions, thank God; otherwise everything would be very boring and we wouldn’t have anything to “argue” about. Anyway, when you watch “Fuente Ovejuna” you’ll better understand what I mean (I think).

I perfectly see what you mean! I just think you are very hard! Anyway, you are right when saying that different points of view enrich.TOday we are going to see Harold Pinter. We´ll tell you.There is a play which surely is worth seeing it: EDIPO, at Matadero. I´ll try to go, but last week of June, after exams...

Who is the person speaking in Spanish???? Is it the director himself who has gone into the blog?? I can´t believe it. I must say that those who found it difficult to follow the play because of the costumes and the setting do have a point. I did not find it so disturbing but I did think, at the beginning that the clothes would have helped us identify the characters and their ranks making the play easier to follow. I agree with Maria Edipo is probably worth seeing. Carmen is going to kill us, she has organised so many and yet we are thinking of another. Different subject, Carmen Marchante has written a wonderful letter for you you have to sign it, you are sure to get the exam.

This weekend I have seen three plays. Harold Pinter´s were the first, both on Friday, at the same theatre, in English: "Landscape" and "Dumb waiter". It was not totally difficult to understand the general meaning. The first being easier than the second, I liked this the most. Despite the fact that there was not any furniture but a table and two chairs, the feeling of isolation that shared the two characters was perfectly performed, each one expressing their troubles -one talking about art and beers, the other one recalling her beloved man- at such a sad play, where even silence kept the tension.The second play was funny but strange.On Saturday, I saw Moliere´s "El enfermo imaginario". It was not the one performed by Quique San Francisco, but by Espada de Madera Company at the homonym theatre, near Lavapiés. I would not have believed that what I was to see was so wonderful! And it was made by Spanish actors! A great pleasure and a surprise, indeed. It seemed to be the seventeenth Century, we being received by the actors themselves, already dressed like the characters they were to perform, they invited us to have a cup of red wine upstairs till the play started...; everything at a lovely and intimate environment, it looked like a enchanted place. In spite of the fact that that day was the last performance, I don´t want you to know more details. It´s worth seeing it by yourself and not to be told. They are performing "Bodas de sangre" every Sunday. Do the reservation by means of Atrapalo.Enjoy the theatre!! There is some hope!!

Yesterday we saw Fuenteovejuna and I enjoyed it. As usual the acting was really poor and some actors were really deficient, for example the Comendador and the Maestre de calatrava whose facial movements were shocking indeed!! What i liked was the actual play, Lope. I think the author manages to transmit the essence of the Spanish character, that is we a brave people who in face of injustice will fight, but nobly, there is no treachery in the assassination of the Comendador, he was a really scoundrel who took advantage of his position. All aling our History the tragedy of the Spanish has been our Leaders, if you look at our politicians we can still see this!!! But the people are great. As usual we cannot generalize but I would like us to think about this. There is very little conection with the French revolutionaries of a Tale. Tose were cowards, they did not put up a fight, and when they decided to retailate, they killed everyone, those who were cruel and htose who were not. The Spanish kill the Comendador and then submitted to the punishment of the Catholic King. In recent History we can look at the Germans invading Paris and the French looked on unaltered!!! They DID NOT offer any resistance!!! When Hitler asked whether his Army could go through Spain, peacefully, towards Africa, Franco´s answer was NO. Read your History first and then compare both countries. WE ARE NOT COWARDS.

I liked the play itself more than the acting. Some actors seemed to me not to fit in with their roles or characters. However, the play makes you think about moral principles, whether they remain currently. They saw their lives affected by Comendador´s injustice, who believed himself to be the owner of the village and its people. They saw this and fought against it, knowing they might go to death and not to be forgiven. Nowadays, we don´t stop complaining, but do nothing to make things change. We don´t go together preserving our dignity or our sullied rights. We allow incompetent people to drive us to the recession, and even seeing that, we let them continue doing it. Not only don´t we go all together, as Fuenteovejuna did, but throw our fellow creatures stones, looking away the common good.Natalia, Silvia, Bandit, tell us your opinion!!!!

Well this is none of the ones you mention it is me, but I hope they will follow suit. I liked the play much better than the way in which they acted, but at least they were or seemed enthusiastic. I think it was a priviledge to be on the two first rows as we could see everything much better.The poor people in the village wereof course afraid of the Comendador and did not find courage until the girl, what was her name? I can´t remember, went into the assambly and insulted them, called them cowards etc. But has to understand that it was difficult for them to fight el Comendador and that afterwards they were very brave not to say who had done it and in that way they saved everybody´s life. So the conclusion is:Not fantastic but enjoyable we had a good time and I was not dying for it to finish as with the Hamlet in Matadero that was real torture!!

Hahaha...,it´s Silvia.Yes, I was very happy to be in the first row, but we were "in danger" in several occassions;clothes being washed in the fountain and twisted in front of us;actors overacting throwing "missiles"(hahaha...metaphor) to the audience; a broken stick flying to us. When they ran all around the stage and to the stairs next to us I felt frightened for I thought they would fall on us!!!Anyway,what is really important, I did like the play,the dramatization,the colourful costumes they wore. It was a bloody battle between the village and the villain,with a happy ending!I always say I wouldn´t like to have lived in other time but our´s,foreverything seems to have been extremely hard ,specially for women.Nevertheless I realise many women are still suffering those hard conditions. The fact and the pity is that nowadays people(we) are not so reactive against others´ problems,are they?Well,just a few.

Hi everyone,I´m not going to add anything interesting with my comment. More less everything is said. The play is better than the acting. The staging, the wardrobe, the scenary, etc, are quite good. But the acting......frankly, some performances were, at least, poor. The best performances were, in my opinion, the mayor and the guy who showed his bottom to the Catholic Kings (ja,ja). However, I agree with Marta, they transmitted enthusiasm and this is something to be grateful for.The most interesting thing of the play is how a woman is capable of encouraging a group of coward men in order to face the villain.